Jon Stewart Gets Serious With Jim Cramer | Politicususa »
Posted By capj71 9 months, 1 week ago in NewsSo the big confrontation, tongue in cheek, finally happened between CNBC’s Jim Cramer and Jon Stewart on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show. What happened was an extraordinary interview that was short on comedy, but long on criticism for CNBC’s role in the financial crisis. Stewart reaffirmed his place as a leading critic of the mainstream media.
Read Full Story at politicususa.com »
1115 Views Share Story 78 Comments Report
Submitted By:
capj71
Hi I am Capj71, but my friends call me Jason. I love politics. I am a liberal, and proud of it. I share and prop ...
Who Also Submitted: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 78 (view all)
-
-
FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
92%
GWHayduke9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I saw the clips a few days ago on Maddow's show - hilarious.
Reply
I watch Kramer's show on occasion, he has some pretty good insights - but was obviously wrong here.
He's flip-flopping to protect his reputation and his show - Jon busted him good!@!-
100%
jovial9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gw, this isn't a reply but I thought it would be interesting to see how other countries are feeling the pinch from wall street as well.
Reply
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518...
-
-
-
92%
MRCOFFEECAKE9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm just glad that Kramer left Larry Kudlow 2 years ago, because Kudlow is despicable.
Reply
It was a classic interview that will be referred to for many years to come.
Stewart showed his truly human (common guy) side, and Kramer, much to his credit, seemed to take it all as if he were in a confessional.
-
-
-
jsatkusComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
prophyporcritesComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned5 Replies
-
100%
truthiness9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
a fantastic interview. I only wish Cramer had been a little more erudite.
Reply
Stewart really laid out the defining perspective on this whole clusterfck for most Americans. You told us to invest long term, then took our money and invested short term, you got rich and we lost everything.
the one thing I disagree with Stewart on is when he describes CNBC as being 'in bed with' the brokers/bankers/ et al, which suggests purpose of forethought. While there are some true villains like Madoff, most it was like being at a party with a tragic ending. Everyone's having such a good time getting drunk together, no one realizes they've set the drapes on fire. Everyone was so busy riding the money train of the bubble, no one stopped to think about preparing for a burst.
negligent.. yes. criminal.. depends on the individual circumstance. conspiratorial... no.-
29%
beavith19 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
that's exactly the way i felt after watching it. nicely said. pozzed you for it.
Reply
its unfortunate that Cramer was Stewart's whipping boy. How about Stewart goes medieval on Frank or Dodd or Paulson.
kicking Cramer was like kicking a dog. -
100%
Progressive9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"CNBC is by and large about market timing and trading the market in the short term—exactly the sort of thing that average investors should not be doing."
Reply
http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2009/03/13/stewartcr... -
100%
Beau78909 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
truthiness, I don't know if there's a plan for CNBC to collude with Wall Street, but there's no doubt CNBC and those companies have a symbiotic relationship. The CEOs, traders and market prognosticators give CNBC content specific to its demographic, and CNBC gives them free publicity. In that sense, they're in bed together.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
100%
MRCOFFEECAKE9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Santilli is just a one hit wonder.. Stewart would be doing him a favor by giving him more publicity..
Reply
But I like the direction that Stewart took..he's speaking for us viewers and small investors.
Now, if we could give him 5 minutes with Bernie Maddoff the whole world would watch@!
-
-
100%
antibrainwasher9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cramer took his beating like a man, showed some stones for going on Stewart, and great job Steward for being completely ruthless.
Reply
Both Cramer and Stewart are Dems, the rest of business cable are right wing cowards screaming socialism and playing with money like its free. -
100%
jovial9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I pulled my money out of stocks when the market was around 10,500. It rose to about 14,000 and I was tempted to throw it back in, but I knew it would adjust so I waited. Most of the other engineers here have almost been completely wiped out. I fyou're a baby boomer like myself, you will never recoup all the losses if you were heavily invested into the stock market. That's right, never. A portion of your money is gone forever.
Reply-
100%
MRCOFFEECAKE9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm lucky..I took mine out in January '08.
Reply
(despite what Paulson and bush were saying I knew we were in a recession)
And YES, if I were invested in Fannie or Freddie I'd be ****** at Barney..
THEY lied to him, and he's a committee chairman for crying out loud, he should have known the questions that needed answering (with proof)..He was lazy.
-
-
100%
djn3nunez39 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
With all seriousness aside, I was very disappointed in last nights show. I mean really, I tune in to Comedy Central get a dose of comedy, not some serious interview about how those with 401K and pensions got F_ucked over during this finanicial meltdown. Hey Jon, why not start a real news show(you seem to do the real serious news a whole lot better than NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN). Then I can still turn to NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN for comedy.
Reply
Now seriously, 'twas an excellent interview. I don't think you'll ever see that on network news! -
100%
Sageparadox9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I somewhat agree with djn. I had to take a step back and remeber that the Daily Show is suppose to be spoofs on actually news, but after watching John Stewart drilling into Cramer like that I couldnt comprehend what I was watching. It actually reminded me of the beating that Apollo Creed took as the Russian pounded him to death in Rocky IV. J.S. who normally takes the roll of a clown, polished up his guns, took apon himself the attributes of a superhero fighting off the evil forces of Wallstreet. I guees the worse of it all was that most of us expected some kind of epic fight between Stewart and Cramer. Insted Cramer took his tail between his legs, rolled over to show his belly, and urinated.
Reply-
100%
MRCOFFEECAKE9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you're a fan of the show you'd understand the build up that made that interview inevitable.
Reply
It was about both men's credibility, and well played out.. Let's see how Cramer reacts at 6PM EST today on his first show back.(even though, technically his first show back was yesterday
at 6PM because Stewart films the daily Show from 4PM-4:30PM)...
Anyone know if Cramer mentioned it on his show yesterday?
-
-
100%
reallypsst9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cramer did what he had to do to keep his job,the fact is the networks are nothing more than scum bags who lie for profit,jon steward was right on cue and cramer was saving his job,lets see if cramer gets a little more serious with actual market probability's instead of bs!
Reply-
100%
Goppy9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
☛ I'd like to point out that some people think 'Creamers' job may be at risk - due to CNBC execs thinking he kowtowed to Stewart.
Reply
After all ... the NBC execs are all Right Wing ... and do not like it when their omnipotence is questioned.
But I say ... ✔ mark this as a win for straight talk!
. -
-
-
-
100%
hyperbola9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It needs to be said loud and clear and repeatedly that mortgages are NOT what crashed the economy.
Reply
What Cooked the World's Economy? It wasn't your overdue mortgage.
What we are living through is the worst financial scandal in history. It dwarfs 1929, Ponzi's scheme, Teapot Dome, the South Sea Bubble, tulip bulbs, you name it. Bernie Madoff? He's peanuts.
Credit derivatives—those securities that few have ever seen—are one reason why this crisis is so different from 1929.
... Hedge funds acquired a good deal of popular mystique. They made scads of money. Their notoriously high entry fees—up to 5 percent of the investment, plus as much as 36 percent of profits—served as barriers to all but the richest investors, who gave fortunes to the funds to play with. The funds boasted of having genius analysts and fabulous proprietary algorithms. Few could discern what they really did, but the returns, for those who could buy in, often seemed magical.
But it wasn't magic. It amounted to the return of the age-old scam called "bucket shops." Also sometimes known as "boiler rooms," bucket shops emerged after the Civil War. Usually, they were storefronts where people came to bet on stocks without owning them. Unlike their customers, the shops actually owned blocks of stock. If customers were betting that a stock would go up, the shops would sell it and the price would plunge; if bettors were bearish, the shops would buy. In this way, they cleaned out their customers. Frenetic bucket-shop activity caused the Panic of 1907. By 1909, New York had banned bucket shops, and every other state soon followed.
In the mid-'90s, though, the credit-derivatives industry was hitting its stride and argued vehemently for exclusion from all state and federal anti-bucket-shop regulations. On the side of the industry were Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and his deputy, Lawrence Summers. Holding the fort for the regulators was Brooksley Born, who headed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The three financial titans ridiculed the virtually unknown and cloutless, but brilliant and prophetic Born, who warned that unrestricted derivatives trading would "threaten our regulated markets, or indeed, our economy, without any federal agency knowing about it." Warren Buffett also weighed in against deregulation.
But Congress loved Greenspan—a/k/a "the Maestro" and "the Oracle"—and Clinton loved Rubin. The sleepy hearings received almost no public attention. The upshot was that Congress removed oversight of derivatives from the CFTC and preempted all state anti-bucket-shop laws. Born resigned shortly afterward.-
100%
hyperbola9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Soon, something odd started to happen. Legitimate big investors, often with millions of dollars to place, found that they couldn't get into certain hedge funds, despite the fact that they were willing to pay steep fees. In retrospect, it seems as if these funds did not want fussy outsiders looking into what they were doing with derivatives.
Reply
...Imagine that a person is terminally ill. He or she would not be able to buy a life insurance policy with a huge death benefit. Obviously, third parties could not purchase policies on the soon-to-be-dead person's life. Yet something like that occurred in the financial world.
...This was not caused by imprudent mortgage lending, though that was a piece of the puzzle. Yes, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were put on steroids during the '90s, and some people got into mortgages who shouldn't have. But the vast majority of homeowners paid their mortgages. Only about 5 to 10 percent of these loans failed—not enough to cause systemic financial failure.
...About $2 trillion in credit derivatives in 1989 jumped to $8 trillion in 1994 and skyrocketed to $100 trillion in 2002. Last year, the Bank for International Settlements, a consortium of the world's central banks based in Basel (the Fed chair, Ben Bernanke, sits on its board), reported the gross value of these commitments at $596 trillion. Some are due, and some will mature soon. Typically, they involve contracts of five years or less.
Credit derivatives are breaking and will continue to break the world's financial system and cause an unending crisis of liquidity and gummed-up credit. Warren Buffett branded derivatives the "financial weapons of mass destruction." Felix Rohatyn, the investment banker who organized the bailout of New York a generation ago, called them "financial hydrogen bombs." -
100%
hyperbola9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Both are right. At almost $600 trillion, over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives dwarf the value of publicly traded equities on world exchanges, which totaled $62.5 trillion in the fall of 2007 and fell to $36.6 trillion a year later.
Reply
The nice thing about public markets is that they act as canaries that give warnings as they did in 1929, 1987 (the program trading debacle), and 2001 (the dot-com bubble), so we can scramble out with our economic lives. But completely private and unregulated, the OTC derivatives trade is justly known as the "dark market."
...The environment from the top of the chain—derivatives gang leaders—to the bottom of the chain—subprime, no-doc loan officers—became "criminogenic," Black says. The only real response? Aggressive prosecution of "elites" at all stages in this twisted mess..... The advantage of treating these players like racketeers under federal law is that their ill-gotten gains could be forfeited. The government could recoup these odious gambling debts instead of simply paying them off. In finance, the bottom line is the bottom line. The bottom line in this scandal is that fantastically wealthy entities positioned themselves to make unfathomable fortunes by betting that average Americans—Joe Six-Packs and hockey moms—would fail.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/03/13/what-coo...
-
-
100%
deathray9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
anyone who's interested should see the entire "thestreet.com" interview that stewart used to skewer cramer...not only does it show up jim cramer as disingenuous, but it shows much of how the market is in the hands of manipulators, and that fundamentals have little to do with a stock's short term performance, once it has been targeted by a hedge fund manager.
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWVmlxhk-tU=http://...
you might find this entire interchange very illuminating, as well as generating some well deserved anger on the part of the viewer.
btw, none of this is news to me; as you recall, i am in this business. feel free to flame away, or if you like, ask me any questions you mght have.
disclaimer: i do not provide investment advice online, but i'll answer any process questions you might have.-
100%
jovial9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Broken link. Here's the real one.
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWVmlxhk-tU -
-
-
-
100%
canadianrancher579 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I saw part of the interview with Cramer today and got a few chuckles out of it but it did sort of upset me in a way. I have a retirement fund that is supposed to help me out once I retire but when it came to making the decision on what to invest in I tried not to take anyones advice and make the decision myself. To me Cramer is just a salesman and should be treated as such, at times one must put their own brain in gear to decide things, I was glad to read some of the comments from those who chose to take their profits and step out of the game. As for deathrays comments about hedge funds I couldn't agree with you more, I trade commodities and if a fund moves in and starts buying or selling they completely disregard any of the fundamental and makes trading very hard and will pull out of the market at any time which can cause very severe moves.
Reply
Just one final comment about any financial show on any channel, and that is its not their money that is at risk but yours and what I have noticed is if you do watch these shows you usually do get conflicting advice and that way they can keep all of their listeners happy whether your a bull or bear. -
100%
mdsartoris9 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Really folks, Cramer is an entertainer and an educator, just as he states at the start of each show!
Reply
If you blame Cramer and CNBC for Not uncovering the truth about our economic condition prior to the collapse last fall, then you should blame all the investment managers and brokers as well. And the SEC-heads up their butts as far as I am concerned. They set the stage for this years ago-uptick rule, etc.
Alan Greenspan knew it was likely to happen and didn't say a word-why? Because revealing it would have caused an immediate collapse of the stock market, or so he says, and the economy could have taken a bigger hit then it did when it unwound on its own... -
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.